Can/Should the U.S. Use Targeted Attacks Against Boko Haram?

 

During the first weeks of January 2015, the fundamentalist, Islamist, terror organization, Boko Haram, reportedly killed an estimated 2,000 innocent people in Nigeria.[1]  During that same week, claimed members of Al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) carried out a series of attacks against members of the Jewish community in France and the satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo.  Twelve people were killed in the attack on Charlie Hebdo and four were killed in a Jewish grocery store near Paris.[2]

Following these atrocities, the world news agencies flooded their broadcasts with different accounts of the attacks that occurred in France, yet little was mentioned about the 2,000 dead at the hands of Boko Haram, in Africa.[3]  Some may attribute this to the prominent role that Europe, and specifically France, plays in the broadcasting of world news.  Others may say that these attacks were more noticeable to the larger news agencies because it is easier for members of the western world to relate to the suffering of other Westerners, opposed to members of an African culture a world away.

Regardless of the reasons for the saturation of the media outlets, very few can argue against the idea that something needs to be done to prevent the genocide that happened in Nigeria from occurring again.  Unfortunately, to date, there has been no resolution passed by Congress to ensure an atrocity like this never happens again.  So why hasn’t the President, as he has done many times before against other “terrorist organizations,” taken direct action against Boko Haram?

Legally, this opens the debate on whether using the Authorization of Use for Military Force (AUMF),[4] issued by Congress in the wake of the attacks against America on September 11, 2001 (and its predecessors), as a justification for targeted action against a terrorist organization, in this case, Boko Haram.  (The possible actions of the president in this situation strikes to the heart of many other legal questions, but this article will focus on the aforementioned AUMF).  The question on whether the AUMF can be used to target Boko Haram begins with a separation of powers argument and ends with an interpretation of Section 2(a) of the AUMF:

[T}he President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, . . . in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States . . .

Using this language, former President Bush and President Obama both carried out targeted attacks in Syria, interrogated suspected and confirmed terrorist leaders, and conducted drone attacks on terrorist leaders in other Middle Eastern and Southwest Asian countries.

This leaves us with the ultimate legal question: whether the president has the authority under the AUMF, a congressional act, to order a targeted attack against Boko Haram in Nigeria?   Subsequent questions include: (1) Are there enough ties to connect Boko Haram to an “organization” that “planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11[?]” (2) Would a targeted attack “prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States [?]”

Summarizing the answers to these important questions: Yes, the President arguably has the authority under the AUMF to order a targeted attack against Boko Haram because (1) Boko Haram has been tied to Al Qaida both financially and through leadership affiliations,[5] and (2) because left alone, Boko Haram will only gain influence and power in the region, and in today’s ease of movement and access to information, Boko Haram could easily set its sights on the United States,[6] the pillar of world capitalism and a supposed affront to Islamist fundamentalism.

Ultimately, when faced with the question, should the U.S. use targeted attacks against Boko Haram, this blogger answers with a resounding yes. To protect the innocents of Africa, to protect U.S. interests and citizens abroad (a topic expanded upon in future blogs), and to protect the U.S. from probable future terrorist attacks conducted by this extremely dangerous and brutal terror organization.

Steven Ziegler is a 2L and a Resident Student Blogger with the Journal of Law and International Affairs at the Penn State University-Dickinson School of Law

---

[1] http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/9/2000-killed-in-boko-haram-raids-towns-covered-in-b/

[2] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30708237

[3] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/12/-sp-boko-haram-attacks-nigeria-baga-ignored-media

[4] http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/pdf/PLAW-107publ40.pdf

[5] http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/06/boko-haram-al-qaeda-201463115816142554.html

[6] http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/missing-nigeria-schoolgirls/washington-worries-boko-haram-planning-attack-u-s-interests-africa-n112536